JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated November 7, 1973 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, reversing the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1965 by the learned trial court and thereby decreeing the plaintiff's suit under Section of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and leave also perused the record. 3. The plaintiff-respondent's case was that the five defendants had occupied the plot number 170 after 1372 F and were liable to be ejected. The position was clarified by the defendants' case that, in fact, the defendants had been in possession of the same land which was their orchard much before the consolidation and was old plot number 298 in which now only one Mahua tree was left. This plot number 298 corresponded to the land now comprised of plot number 170 while part of the old plot number 302 being the tenancy of the plaintiff, Latif Ahmad was now on the spot plot number 171. In consolidation proceedings, however, old plot number 298 area 1 bigha 12 biswas was given new number 171 area 1 bigha 12 biswas and the old plot number 302/1 area 2 bighas was given new number 170 area 2 bighas. But at the time of preparation of new Shajra, these two plots which remained a Chak were incorrectly shown by reversing their location: new number 170 was given to the plot which was old number 298 and new number 171 given to the other plot which was old number 302/1. Thus the defendants' although in possession of their own land were being recorded as trespassers i and this number 170 was wrongly included in the Khatauni Khata of the plaintiff. The learned trial court framed issues and decided them on merits, finding that the plaintiff is the Sirdar of the plot which is at present marked as 171 in the consolidation map while the defendants 1 to 5 are Sirdars of the plot which is at present marked as 170 in that map. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The learned trial court framed issues and decided them on merits, finding that the plaintiff is the Sirdar of the plot which is at present marked as 171 in the consolidation map while the defendants 1 to 5 are Sirdars of the plot which is at present marked as 170 in that map. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. However, the learned Additional Commissioner held that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act and the village map as prepared by the consolidation authorities should be deemed to be final in view of Section 27(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Accordingly, he held the plot number 170 as marked on the Consolidation map to be belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants were held trespassers: as a result the suit was recorded. 4. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent's counsel that the request of the learned counsel for the appellant for the respondent numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be deleted, could not be allowed and in view of the fact that the respondent number 4 had died and no heirs were substituted while no service was effected on the respondent number 5, the appeal has to be abated. The appellant's counsel has cited a ruling reported in 1977 A.W.C. 13 in support of bis argument that under Order XLI Rule 4 C.P.C., even a single defendant, namely Nanbudda, could file the appeal and could get the decree reversed. I agree with this view and, accordingly, respondent numbers 4 to 7 have been allowed to be deleted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Shajra prepared during consolidation operations has to be deemed final and the learned trial court erred in finding any mistake in numbering the plots. However, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the map prepared during the consolidation operations can be corrected and the learned first appellate court erred in deciding otherwise. The counsel has cited a ruling reported in Mohd. Raza v. Board of Revenue, 1973 A.W.R. 621, wherein it was observed that it is wrong to assume that the map prepared under Section 27 of the U.P. C.H. Act must necessarily be treated as final ana conclusive. 6. It may further be added that even Section 27(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act states about the presumption of correctness subject to contrary being proved. 6. It may further be added that even Section 27(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act states about the presumption of correctness subject to contrary being proved. The right of rebuttal must be admissible. Secondly, this presumption applied to 'all entries in the record of rights' only and not for the Shajra. Admittedly, the Shajra is not a record of rights. Section 27(3) of the U.P. C.H. Act itself provides that the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall apply to the maintenance of such map, field-book etc. Under these provisions, any errors which are shown to have been made in such map or field-book, shall be corrected. Thus there is no scope left for the application of bar under Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act. 7. It is obvious that the learned Additional Commissioner took an erroneous view in holding that the correctness of the map prepared during the consolidation, proceedings was presumed under Section 27 (3) of the U.P. C.H. Act and also in holding that in view of the finality of the map, no corrections in the map could be carried out and the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. As discussed above, the presumption does not apply to the map. The bar under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act also is not applicable, since the provisions of law allow for possibility of mistakes in the map and their correction. Such bar applies when a matter has been adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities and the entries based on such adjudication are to be deemed final. But even the entries made otherwise and in a routine manner are subject to right of rebuttal. The learned trial court rightly held that since there was no adjudication of the consolidation authorities as to the actual land in dispute, and there was mistake in the preparation of the consolidation map, the bar under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act did not apply. 8. Coming to the mistake itself, it is seen from the judgment of the learned trial court that the mistake consisting of the reversal of plot numbers 170 and 171 at the time of numbering in the consolidation map, has been clearly established. 8. Coming to the mistake itself, it is seen from the judgment of the learned trial court that the mistake consisting of the reversal of plot numbers 170 and 171 at the time of numbering in the consolidation map, has been clearly established. The learned trial court even compared the old Shajra with the new one and satisfied himself that the old plot number 298 comprised of the same land which now was included in the new plot number 170, In the various C.H. forms, the old plot number 292 was equated with new plot number 171 and number 302/1 was equated with new plot number 170 but on the consolidation map these new numbers 171 and 170 were marked in reversed positions. The two Shajra extracts are on the file and one can see the soundness of the finding by the learned trial court by himself comparing the positions of these two Chak plots. There is thus no mistake in the finding of the learned trial court that now the plaintiff is the Sirdar of the plot which is at present marked as 171 in the consolidation map while the defendants 1 to 3 are Sirdars of the plot which at present is marked as 170 in the consolidation map. Of course, the areas of the two plot numbers 170 and 171 will have to be corrected 1 bigha 12 biswas and 2 bighas respectively if numbers remain as they are. The learned Additional Commissioner has not taken care to appreciate the importance comparison of the pre-consolidation map with the consolidation map, in determining whether the plot numbers were given correctly and whether or not there was any reversal by mistake in the two plot numbers. Such comparison cannot be called arbitrary or unwarranted but since these two plots remained a Chak in consolidation proceedings, this is the only method to verify the case of the defendant which had been supported by the earlier entries. 9. Lastly, it may be observed that there remains some discrepancy in the area if the case of the defendants about the need of correction is accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that number 302/1 was 2 bighas but if new number 171 is found to be corresponding to it, its area has to be 2 bighas. 9. Lastly, it may be observed that there remains some discrepancy in the area if the case of the defendants about the need of correction is accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that number 302/1 was 2 bighas but if new number 171 is found to be corresponding to it, its area has to be 2 bighas. Similarly, new number 170 which corresponds to the old number 298 should have area 1 bigha 12 biswas. This discrepancy, no doubt, crops up but it is to be settled by demarcation in a proceeding under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. This discrepancy cannot establish that the defendants were not having old plot number 298 or that they are not in possession of new plot number 170 by continuing their old possession. Their possession is even confirmed by plaintiffs' own admission of existence of a Mahoa tree on the plot in defendants' possession. This ultimately remains a case of mistake in the preparation of consolidation map by reversal of the plot numbers 170 and 171 in marking and so the remedy is only to correct the records to make them consistent with these findings. 10. In the circumstances, I find that the judgment and decree by the learned first appellate court dated November 7, 1973 cannot be maintained and have to be set aside. In consequence, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated November 7, 1973 is set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated October 14, 1969 is confirmed, subjects to the modification in the finding that the plaintiff is the Sirdar of present plot number 171 area 2 bighas and the defendants are the Sirdars of the present plot number 170 area 1 bigha 12 biswas.